5.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Yerevan.
6.  The applicant is a lawyer by profession.
7.  On 10 June 2005 the investigator decided to institute criminal proceedings. The relevant decision stated:
“...having studied the materials received from the [National Security Service of Armenia] concerning the preparation and use by ... [the applicant] of obviously false documents in June and July 2003 and misappropriation [by him] of a third person’s property entrusted to him ..., and considering that the materials contain features of offences envisaged by Article 179 § 3 (1) and Article 325 § 1 of the Criminal Code [CC] ... I have decided to institute criminal proceedings...”
8.  On 4, 15 and 28 July 2005 the applicant was summoned to the General Prosecutor’s Office and questioned as a witness in the context of the above criminal proceedings.
9.  On 7 October 2005 the applicant was again summoned to the General Prosecutor’s Office where, from 7.50 to 9.50 p.m., he participated in a confrontation with another witness, A.H.
10.  On the same date at 9.50 p.m. the investigator drew up an arrest record, in which it was stated that the applicant was arrested at that hour on suspicion of having misappropriated a large sum of money in collusion with A.H. by using forged documents. It appears that another person, T.A., was also suspected of involvement in those offences.
11.  On 10 October 2005 the applicant was formally charged under Article 178 § 3 (1) and Article 325 § 2 of the CC.
12.  On the same date the investigator filed a motion with the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan, seeking to have the applicant detained for a period of two months. The investigator substantiated his motion with the fact that the applicant had committed a grave crime, that if he stayed at large he might obstruct the examination of the case during the pre-trial and court proceedings by falsifying documents, making public the data collected in the investigation and other means, that he had refused to testify and to answer questions when interviewed as a witness and that he had misappropriated a particularly large amount of money. It appears that two volumes of materials relating to the criminal case were submitted to the court in support of this motion.
13.  On the same date at 8.20 p.m. the District Court, presided by one judge, started the examination of the investigator’s motion in the presence of the applicant and his ten lawyers. It appears that the hearing was held in the judge’s office.
14.  At the beginning of the court hearing the applicant’s lawyers requested that a copy of the investigator’s motion be provided to them. The investigator argued that there was no such requirement under the law and it was sufficient to read out the motion. The court nevertheless ordered that a copy of the motion be provided to the applicant’s lawyers and announced a ten-minute recess in order for them to acquaint themselves with it.
15.  Following the recess, one of the applicant’s lawyers asked the court whether he had a right to submit written objections against the motion and, if so, whether he was entitled to be provided with sufficient time to do so. The presiding judge replied that only oral objections could be submitted and that time could be requested after the presentation of the motion by the investigator. The lawyer further asked the court whether he had a right to acquaint himself with the materials on which the investigator’s motion was based. The investigator objected to this request, stating that the applicant and his lawyers did not enjoy such a right under Articles 65 and 73 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP). The judge stated that the lawyers had no right to acquaint themselves with the materials, pursuant to Article 285 of the CCP. The applicant’s lawyers challenged the judge, claiming that this was in violation of the principle of adversarial proceedings and equality of arms. The presiding judge examined and decided to dismiss this challenge.
16.  At some point after 10 p.m. the applicant’s lawyers filed a motion, requesting the presiding judge to acknowledge the fact that the applicant’s 72-hour long arrest authorised under the domestic law had expired at 9.50 p.m. and that there were no restrictions on his liberty. The investigator objected, arguing that the motion had no connection with the issues examined by the court, namely the applicant’s placement in detention. The presiding judge examined the motion and announced his decision, finding that the motion was to be examined at a later stage.
17.  The applicant’s lawyers insisted that the applicant was entitled to be released since his 72-hour long arrest had expired and challenged the judge for refusing to take a decision on this question. The applicant joined this challenge and stated that, during the judge’s examination of the last motion, he had gone out of the judge’s office into the reception room but was prevented from leaving the reception room by four police officers. The investigator objected to this motion, arguing that the applicant was not allowed to leave the hearing room without the presiding judge’s permission before a recess was announced, pursuant to Article 65 § 4 (6) of the CCP. Since no recess was announced, the applicant was not allowed to leave the hearing room. The presiding judge examined and decided to dismiss this challenge.
18.  The presiding judge then proceeded to the examination of the investigator’s motion. The applicant’s lawyers requested the court to adjourn the hearing for several hours and asked to have access to the materials of the case in order to prepare their objections. The investigator objected, stating that his motion was to be examined promptly. The presiding judge examined and dismissed this request.
19.  The applicant and his lawyers then submitted, inter alia, that the fear of his absconding was unjustified. The criminal proceedings had been pending for four months and he had never made any attempt to flee the country. Furthermore, he had permanent residence and elderly and sick parents who were dependent solely on him. Lastly, he had always appeared upon the investigator’s summons and had no intention of obstructing the investigation.
20.  On 11 October 2005 at 5.05 a.m. the judge closed the hearing by announcing his decision. The judge found the investigator’s motion to be substantiated and ordered the applicant’s detention until 7 December 2005, taking into account the dangers posed to society by the imputed offence and the fact that the maximum sentence for the offences in question exceeded one year’s imprisonment, and having sufficient grounds to believe that the applicant might abscond and might obstruct the investigation by exerting unlawful influence on persons involved in the criminal proceedings, by concealing or falsifying materials significant for the case and by failing to appear upon the summons of the authority dealing with the case without valid reasons. The judge, in his decision, further found that there were no restrictions on the applicant’s liberty after 9.50 p.m. on 10 October 2005 and referred to the requirements of Article 65 § 4 (6) of the CCP.
21.  According to the applicant, each time the presiding judge examined a challenge or a motion, all the participants in the hearing were asked to leave the judge’s office. On each such occasions he was ordered to wait in the judge’s reception room and was prevented from leaving by four police officers, while other participants in the hearing could freely walk about or leave the court building.
22.  On 17 October 2005 the applicant’s lawyers lodged an appeal. In their appeal they argued, inter alia, that they had not had access to the materials of the case consisting of two volumes which had been submitted to the court in support of the investigator’s motion and that they had had only ten minutes to study the investigator’s motion and to prepare their objections. They further argued that the District Court had justified the applicant’s detention on grounds which had not been invoked by the investigator, namely the risk of absconding, of his exerting unlawful influence on persons involved in the criminal proceedings and of his not appearing upon the investigating authority’s summons. They lastly argued that, in any event, the justification of the applicant’s detention lacked any reasoning as the District Court had failed to explain on what grounds the risks in question were believed to exist in the applicant’s case.
23.  On 27 October 2005 the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal examined the applicant’s appeal in the presence of the applicant’s seven lawyers. It appears that during these proceedings the applicant’s lawyers were allowed to familiarise themselves with the materials submitted by the investigator in support of his motion. These materials consisted of 69 pages and included, inter alia, the arrest record, the charges and the transcript of the applicant’s questioning. The lawyers alleged, however, that two volumes of materials had been presented to the District Court and requested the Court of Appeal to order the investigating authority to disclose these materials. This request was refused, as a result of which the applicant’s lawyers unsuccessfully challenged the impartiality of the court. Thereafter, the lawyers filed a motion, seeking that an audio recording of the hearing be made. The Court of Appeal examined and dismissed this motion. The parties then made submissions concerning the substance of the investigator’s motion and the applicant’s appeal.
24.  The Court of Appeal decided to dismiss the applicant’s appeal, finding that the materials of the case indicated that there was a reasonable suspicion of his having committed an offence which was punishable by a prison term exceeding one year, and that the nature and dangerousness of the imputed offences and the particular circumstances of the case provided sufficient grounds to believe that the applicant might obstruct the investigation. The Court of Appeal further found that the proceedings before the District Court had been conducted in an adversarial manner and with respect for the equality of arms as required by the Convention and the CCP. Furthermore, the District Court had upheld the requirements of Article 201 of the CCP and had not based its decision on circumstances which were not known to the applicant. The reasons for the applicant’s detention were based on the facts of the case and the District Court had not gone beyond the scope of the investigator’s motion.
25.  On 8 November 2005 the applicant’s lawyers lodged an appeal on points of law with the Court of Cassation.
26.  On 27 November 2005 constitutional amendments were introduced in Armenia with effect from 6 December 2005. As a result of these amendments the Court of Cassation was entrusted with a new role, namely to ensure the uniform application of the law.
27.  By a letter of 9 December 2005 the Chairman of the Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation returned the appeal unexamined in accordance with the decision of the Council of Court Chairmen of 8 December 2005 taken in connection with the entry into force of the above-mentioned constitutional amendments.
28.  On 28 November 2005 the investigator filed a motion, seeking to have the applicant’s detention extended for another two months, namely until 7 February 2006. The investigator substantiated the necessity of extension on the same grounds as in his previous motion of 10 October 2005.
29.  The applicant’s lawyers filed objections against this motion, arguing that it had been filed out of time and was based on the same groundless and standard allegations which had been invoked in the previous motion.
30.  On 1 December 2005 at 11 a.m. the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan started the examination of the investigator’s motion in the presence of the investigator and the applicant’s five lawyers. The applicant’s lawyers filed a motion seeking to receive a copy of the investigator’s motion and accompanying documents, which was apparently granted. Thereafter, they filed another motion seeking to adjourn the hearing for one day in order to prepare the defence. This motion was granted partially and the hearing was adjourned until 4 p.m. After the resumption of the hearing, the applicant’s lawyers filed another motion, seeking to ensure the applicant’s presence at the trial. This motion was granted and the trial was adjourned until 12 noon the next day.
31.  On 2 December 2005 the General Prosecutor approved the investigator’s motion seeking to have the investigation period, which was to expire on 10 December 2005, extended until 10 February 2006.
32.  On the same date at 12 noon the District Court continued the examination of the investigator’s motion of 28 November 2005. The applicant’s lawyers submitted their written observations in reply to this motion and a number of substantiating documents. Thereafter the applicant made oral submissions, contesting the grounds for his continued detention. The judge proceeded to the examination of the written materials submitted by the investigator and then departed to the deliberation room.
33.  The District Court found the investigator’s motion to be substantiated and decided to grant it, taking into account that the grounds for the applicant’s detention still persisted.
34.  On 8 December 2005 the Armenian Bar Association decided to apply to the General Prosecutor’s Office with a request to have the applicant’s detention replaced with the Bar Association’s guarantee.
35.  On 12 December 2005 the applicant’s lawyers lodged an appeal against the decision of the District Court of 2 December 2005. In their appeal they argued, inter alia, that the investigator’s motion had been filed out of time and should not therefore have been examined. Furthermore, no materials whatsoever were submitted to the court in support of this motion. The District Court had therefore failed to examine the materials of the criminal case. Nor did it analyse the arguments raised in the investigator’s motion. Its decision was therefore groundless and contained standard reasoning.
36.  By a letter of 16 December 2005 the General Prosecutor’s Office informed the head of the Bar Association that the grounds for the applicant’s detention still persisted and there were therefore no reasons to replace it.
37.  On 22 and 23 December 2005 the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal held hearings, examining the applicant’s appeal. It appears that in the proceedings before the Court of Appeal, one of the applicant’s lawyers requested that the applicant’s detention be replaced with a non-custodial preventive measure. It further appears that the investigator submitted certain documents in support of his motion, which had not been submitted to the District Court. The applicant’s lawyers were allowed to familiarise themselves with these documents. They objected, however, to these documents being taken into account, alleging that the Court of Appeal had no jurisdiction to examine documents which had not been examined by the District Court.
38.  On 26 December 2006 the Court of Appeal continued the examination of the applicant’s appeal and decided to dismiss it on the same grounds as before, adding that the complexity of the case, the amount of investigative measures to be taken, the applicant’s behaviour (even if the accused is not obliged to cooperate, nevertheless, he had refused to testify and to provide handwriting and signature samples) and the fact that the two co-accused were currently in hiding provided sufficient grounds to believe that the applicant might obstruct the investigation. As regards the submission of new materials by the investigator, the Court of Appeal found that the law did not prevent the investigator from doing so.
39.  On 27 January 2006 the investigator filed a motion, seeking to have the applicant’s detention extended for another two months, namely until 7 April 2006. The investigator substantiated the necessity of extension on the same grounds as in his previous motions.
40.  On 1 February 2006 the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan examined this motion. In the proceedings before the District Court one of the applicant’s lawyers made a reference to the Bar Association’s request of 8 December 2005 as an additional circumstance justifying the applicant’s release. The District Court found the investigator’s motion to be substantiated and decided to grant it, taking into account that the grounds for the applicant’s detention still persisted. As regards the Bar Association’s request, the District Court found that this request was addressed to the General Prosecutor’s Office and that, in any event, the only alternative preventive measure to detention was bail.
41.  On an unspecified date the applicant’s lawyers lodged an appeal.
42.  On 15 February 2006 the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal quashed the District Court’s decision and decided to order the applicant’s release. The Court of Appeal found that the persistence of a reasonable suspicion was no longer sufficient to justify the applicant’s continued detention and that the risk of his obstructing the investigation was already small at that stage of the proceedings.
43.  On 10 August 2006 the investigator decided to suspend the criminal proceedings on the grounds envisaged by Article 31 § 1 (2) and (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The relevant decision in its part concerning the applicant stated:
“At the current stage of the proceedings it is not possible to disjoin the materials of the criminal case against [the applicant] and to submit a bill of indictment to the court, because the flight and the undisclosed whereabouts of his accomplices [A.H. and T.A.] make it impossible to guarantee [the applicant’s] rights under Article 6 § 3 (d) of [the European Convention of Human Rights]... At the same time, in view of the evidence obtained during the investigation, it is not possible to terminate the criminal proceedings against [the applicant] on any ground.
On the basis of the above, taking into consideration the fact that [the] statements made by [the accused A.H. and T.A.] concerning the circumstances disclosed and confirmed by the investigation after [their] flight and other investigative measures to be carried out with their participation may be of significant importance for the determination of the charge against the other accused in the criminal case, [the applicant], and for the qualification and evaluation of the acts committed by him from the criminal law perspective[.H]owever, [A.H. and T.A.] are wanted and their whereabouts are unknown, namely there is a force majeure which temporarily precludes further examination of the criminal case...”
44.  On 17 December 2007 the investigation of the criminal case was taken over from the General Prosecutor’s Office by the National Security Service.
45.  It appears that there were no further developments in the case. The proceedings against the applicant were still pending on 10 September 2010, that is the date when the last observation in the present case was filed by the Government.